From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F9C3857420 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:22:13 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 81F9C3857420 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 15FCLCRk022901; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:21:13 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 15FCLCqC022900; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:21:12 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:21:12 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Martin Sebor , Martin Sebor , gcc Patches Subject: Re: [RFC] [wwwdocs] Rewrite docs on commit message and patch format Message-ID: <20210615122112.GE5077@gate.crashing.org> References: <858882ae-9a19-51b7-531c-d2be4bc303c7@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, TXREP, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR, T_SPF_PERMERROR autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:22:14 -0000 On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:39:58AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > I think suggesting a single format (but allowing variations on it) is > **much** better than not saying anything at all. For new contributors > it's helpful to say "this is what we want" so they have a guideline to > follow. Most people are smart enough to look at what others do and think about why they do things that way, I hope. And then think what is best for themselves. Maybe I am too optimistic :-) >

A major benefit of a good, descriptive subject line is that it makes > the output of git log --oneline more useful. Including the > component tag and bug number(s) helps with that, but isn't compulsory > if the subject is already clear and has enough context.

The tags and the PR # are the least important things in the patch subject. If you can fit them in (without blowing the 50 char limit) then sure; and as I said before, well-chosen headings can be shorter than free-form text expressing the same. Segher